In a land­mark first, Chi­nese sci­en­tist claims birth of ge­net­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied ba­bies — and all hell breaks loose

A Chi­nese re­searcher is claim­ing that he cre­at­ed the first-ever ge­net­i­cal­ly edit­ed ba­bies us­ing CRISPR/Cas9 tools that have now be­come a com­mon fea­ture in labs around the world. And the news trig­gered a tem­pest in sci­en­tif­ic cir­cles the world over as re­searchers who have been us­ing gene-edit­ing tech to re­fine plants and forge new ther­a­pies try to puz­zle out the stun­ning —if true — de­vel­op­ment fea­tured on YouTube.

Sev­er­al ex­perts — in­clud­ing co-in­ven­tor Feng Zhang — crit­i­cized the ex­per­i­ment, rais­ing po­ten­tial safe­ty is­sues that could arise as a re­sult of the ge­net­ic tin­ker­ing. And Rice Uni­ver­si­ty, where a pro­fes­sor was re­port­ed­ly in­volved, is in­ves­ti­gat­ing.

The sci­en­tist who claimed cred­it for the work, though, of­fered a sun­ny per­spec­tive on YouTube.

“Two beau­ti­ful Chi­nese girls named Lu­lu and Nana came cry­ing in­to the world as healthy as any oth­er ba­bies a few weeks ago,” said Shen­zhen-based re­searcher Jiankui He in the YouTube video and WeChat post. But this was no av­er­age birth. The re­searcher’s un­ver­i­fied claim is that the twins’ em­bryos have been ge­net­i­cal­ly en­gi­neered with CRISPR to de­com­mis­sion CCR5, a gene used by HIV as a back door in­to a cell.

Ahead of an in­ter­na­tion­al con­fer­ence on gene edit­ing ex­pect­ed to com­mence on Tues­day in Hong Kong, He said he had al­tered em­bryos for sev­en cou­ples dur­ing fer­til­i­ty treat­ments, with one preg­nan­cy re­sult­ing thus far. But the le­git­i­ma­cy of the project is be­ing in­ves­ti­gat­ed. The South­ern Uni­ver­si­ty of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy in Shen­zhen, with which He is af­fil­i­at­ed, is­sued a state­ment say­ing it was “deeply shocked” and un­aware of his re­search project which they con­sid­er a “se­ri­ous vi­o­la­tion of aca­d­e­m­ic ethics and stan­dards.” The uni­ver­si­ty added He has been on leave with­out pay since Feb­ru­ary.

He has claimed his aim was not to cure or pre­vent an in­her­it­ed dis­ease, but to con­fer a trait that is nat­u­ral­ly com­mon in parts of North­ern Eu­rope — an abil­i­ty to re­sist an HIV in­fec­tion from the AIDS virus. But the choice to ed­it this CCR5 gene, the block­ade of which may al­so be ef­fec­tive in thwart­ing cholera and small­pox, im­me­di­ate­ly trig­gered an on­line up­roar over the use of CRISPR to al­ter DNA in a way that could be passed down for gen­er­a­tions to come.

MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Re­view’s An­to­nio Re­gal­a­do point­ed out this could be par­tic­u­lar­ly con­tro­ver­sial be­cause there are eas­i­er and cheap­er ways to pre­vent HIV in­fec­tion, or in­deed sup­press it. Edit­ing em­bryos dur­ing IVF will al­so be ex­pen­sive and in­volve tech­nol­o­gy out of reach for poor­er pock­ets of the world where HIV is ubiq­ui­tous.

Some are al­so sug­gest­ing the sto­ry rais­es oth­er thorny ques­tions. Im­pe­r­i­al Col­lege in­ves­ti­ga­tor Tom El­lis not­ed:

Al­though there is sci­en­tif­ic con­sen­sus that gene edit­ing should not be em­ployed to make “de­sign­er ba­bies” en­dowed with en­hanced phys­i­cal fea­tures or in­tel­lec­tu­al traits, the ju­ry is out on to what de­gree sci­ence should in­ter­fere with na­ture to pre­vent, treat or cure dis­ease.

In ad­di­tion to Chi­na, lab­o­ra­to­ry re­search is un­der­way in Swe­den and the UK, in­ves­ti­gat­ing the po­ten­tial of gene-edit­ing in hu­man em­bryos. But in the Unit­ed States it’s a po­lit­i­cal­ly charged propo­si­tion that has won the nar­row en­dorse­ment of the Na­tion­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, which last year rec­om­mend­ed that germ-line mod­i­fi­ca­tion of hu­mans was jus­ti­fied in some cir­cum­stances, such as pre­vent­ing the birth of chil­dren with se­ri­ous dis­eases. This rec­om­men­da­tion will like­ly fall on deaf ears, as sec­tions of the pub­lic ve­he­ment­ly op­pose such in­ter­fer­ence on re­li­gious grounds. In fact such mod­i­fi­ca­tions are prac­ti­cal­ly out of the ques­tion — with laws in place pro­hibit­ing the FDA from even con­sid­er­ing pro­pos­als to cre­ate ge­net­i­cal­ly-edit­ed off­spring.

The promise of CRISPR/Cas9 edit­ing has long been her­ald­ed. How­ev­er, ex­per­i­men­ta­tion with the pro­ce­dure has yield­ed sig­nif­i­cant safe­ty con­cerns. Da­ta pre­sent­ed ear­li­er this year sug­gest that the tool, which is es­sen­tial­ly a pair of mol­e­c­u­lar scis­sors, may in­ad­ver­tent­ly in­crease can­cer risk in some cells, or in­tro­duce ac­ci­den­tal mu­ta­tions — is­sues that could ham­per the de­vel­op­ment of gene-edit­ing ther­a­pies cham­pi­oned by com­pa­nies such as CRISPR Ther­a­peu­tics $CR­SP, Ed­i­tas Med­i­cine $ED­IT and In­tel­lia Ther­a­peu­tics $NT­LA.

“The ge­net­ic edit­ing of a speck-size hu­man em­bryo car­ries sig­nif­i­cant risks, in­clud­ing the risks of in­tro­duc­ing un­want­ed mu­ta­tions or yield­ing a ba­by whose body is com­posed of some edit­ed and some unedit­ed cells. Da­ta on the Chi­nese tri­al site in­di­cate that one of the fe­tus­es is a ‘mo­sa­ic’ of cells that had been edit­ed in dif­fer­ent ways,” Re­gal­a­do un­der­scored in his ar­ti­cle.

He’s project in­volved cou­ples in which the men had HIV but the women did not, and the goal was to pre­vent their chil­dren from suf­fer­ing the same fate.

Ac­cord­ing to the AP re­port, He said that in one twin, both copies of the in­tend­ed gene had been al­tered, while in the oth­er twin, just one copy had been dis­abled — and that there was no ev­i­dence of harm to any oth­er genes. Hu­mans with one copy of the gene can still be in­fect­ed with HIV.

The edit­ing oc­curred dur­ing IVF — first, the sperm was sep­a­rat­ed from the se­men where HIV is known to linger. Then, a sin­gle sperm was placed in­to a soli­tary egg to cre­ate an em­bryo when the gene-edit­ing tool was em­ployed. Cou­ples re­cruit­ed to the study were giv­en free fer­til­i­ty treat­ment in re­turn for their par­tic­i­pa­tion and of­fered the choice to use ei­ther edit­ed or non-edit­ed em­bryos for preg­nan­cy at­tempts. Over­all, 16 of 22 em­bryos were edit­ed, and 11 em­bryos were used in 6 im­plant at­tempts be­fore the twin preg­nan­cy was re­al­ized, He told the AP.

He, who is al­so a founder of a DNA se­quenc­ing com­pa­ny Di­rect Ge­nomics, ob­tained in­formed con­sent from par­tic­i­pants call­ing the study an “AIDS vac­cine de­vel­op­ment project.” How­ev­er, in his ap­pli­ca­tion form seek­ing eth­i­cal ap­proval, he dubbed it a CCR5 gene edit­ing project.

Press re­ports tied his work to Rice Uni­ver­si­ty’s Michael Deem, who now will have to an­swer for what, ex­act­ly, they did. Rice Uni­ver­si­ty was quick to launch its own probe. They not­ed:

Re­cent press re­ports de­scribe a case of ge­nom­ic edit­ing of hu­man em­bryos in Chi­na. These re­ports in­clude a de­scrip­tion of in­volve­ment by Dr. Michael Deem, a pro­fes­sor of bio­engi­neer­ing at Rice Uni­ver­si­ty. This re­search rais­es trou­bling sci­en­tif­ic, le­gal and eth­i­cal ques­tions.  Rice of­fers the fol­low­ing state­ment:

  1. Rice had no knowl­edge of this work.

  2. To Rice’s knowl­edge, none of the clin­i­cal work was per­formed in the Unit­ed States.

  3. Re­gard­less of where it was con­duct­ed, this work as de­scribed in press re­ports, vi­o­lates sci­en­tif­ic con­duct guide­lines and is in­con­sis­tent with eth­i­cal norms of the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty and Rice Uni­ver­si­ty.

  4. We have be­gun a full in­ves­ti­ga­tion of Dr. Deem’s in­volve­ment in this re­search.

And two founders of CRISPR were al­so quick to note their own prob­lems with the Chi­na em­bryo project.

The Broad In­sti­tute’s Feng Zhang, a co-in­ven­tor of the tech­nol­o­gy, had this to say:

Al­though I ap­pre­ci­ate the glob­al threat posed by HIV, at this stage, the risks of edit­ing em­bryos to knock out CCR5 seem to out­weigh the po­ten­tial ben­e­fits, not to men­tion that knock­ing out of CCR5 will like­ly ren­der a per­son much more sus­cep­ti­ble for West Nile Virus. Just as im­por­tant, there are al­ready com­mon and high­ly-ef­fec­tive meth­ods to pre­vent trans­mis­sion of HIV from a par­ent to an un­born child.

Giv­en the cur­rent ear­ly state of genome edit­ing tech­nol­o­gy, I’m in fa­vor of a mora­to­ri­um on im­plan­ta­tion of edit­ed em­bryos, which seems to be the in­ten­tion of the CCR5 tri­al, un­til we have come up with a thought­ful set of safe­ty re­quire­ments first.

Not on­ly do I see this as risky, but I am al­so deeply con­cerned about the lack of trans­paren­cy sur­round­ing this tri­al.


Im­age: Jiankui He. THE HE LAB via YOUTUBE

2023 Spot­light on the Fu­ture of Drug De­vel­op­ment for Small and Mid-Sized Biotechs

In the context of today’s global economic environment, there is an increasing need to work smarter, faster and leaner across all facets of the life sciences industry.  This is particularly true for small and mid-sized biotech companies, many of which are facing declining valuations and competing for increasingly limited funding to propel their science forward.  It is important to recognize that within this framework, many of these smaller companies already find themselves resource-challenged to design and manage clinical studies themselves because they don’t have large teams or in-house experts in navigating the various aspects of the drug development journey. This can be particularly challenging for the most complex and difficult to treat diseases where no previous pathway exists and patients are urgently awaiting breakthroughs.

Spe­cial re­port 2022: Meet 20 women blaz­ing trails in bio­phar­ma R&D

When you run a special report for a fourth year, it can start feeling a little bit like a ritual. You go through the motions — in our case opening up nominations for top women in biopharma R&D and reviewing more than 500 entries — you make your choices of inclusion and exclusion. You host a ceremony.

But then things happen that remind you why you do it in the first place. Perhaps a Supreme Court rules to overturn the constitutional right to abortion and a group of women biotech leaders makes it clear they strongly dissent; perhaps new data on gender diversity in the industry come out that look all too similar to the old ones, suggesting women are still dramatically underrepresented at the top; perhaps protests and conflicts around the world put in stark terms the struggles that many women still face in earning the most basic recognition.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Kristen Hege, Bristol Myers Squibb SVP, early clinical development, oncology/hematology and cell therapy (Illustration: Assistant Editor Kathy Wong for Endpoints News)

Q&A: Bris­tol My­er­s' Kris­ten Hege on cell ther­a­py, can­cer pa­tients and men­tor­ing the next gen­er­a­tion

Kristen Hege leads Bristol Myers Squibb’s early oncology discovery program carrying on from the same work at Celgene, which was acquired by BMS in 2019. She’s known for her early work in CAR-T, having pioneered the first CAR-T cell trial for solid tumors more than 25 years ago.

However, the eminent physician-scientist is more than just a drug developer mastermind. She’s also a practicing physician, mother to two young women, an avid backpacker and intersecting all those interests — a champion of young women and people of color in STEM and life sciences.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Gossamer Bio CEO Faheem Hasnain at Endpoints' #BIO22 panel (J.T. MacMillan Photography for Endpoints News)

Gos­samer’s Fa­heem Has­nain de­fends a round of pos­i­tive PAH da­ta as a clear win. But can these PhII re­sults stand up to scruti­ny?

Gossamer Bio $GOSS posted a statistically significant improvement for its primary endpoint in the key Phase II TORREY trial for lead drug seralutinib on Tuesday morning. But CEO Faheem Hasnain has some explaining to do on the important secondary of the crucial six-minute walk distance test — which will be the primary endpoint in Phase III — as the data on both endpoints fell short of expectations, missing one analyst’s bar on even modest success.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Graphic: Shutterstock

Prometheus moves to raise cash hours af­ter PhII da­ta leads to stock surge

After releasing better-than-anticipated data on two mid-stage studies Wednesday morning, Prometheus Biosciences’ CEO said the company would “take some time to assess” its next financing options.

It only needed about seven hours. Wednesday afternoon after the market closed, the biotech announced it would seek $250 million through an equity offering as the company looks to edge out anti-TL1A competitor Pfizer and its new partner Roivant.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Piper Trelstad, head of CMC, Bill & Melinda Gates Medical Research Institute

Q&A with Gates leader: Women tak­ing on more roles in phar­ma man­u­fac­tur­ing, but still work to do

More and more women are driving innovation and taking leadership roles in biotech – as evidenced today in the release of Endpoints News’ list of the top 20 women in the R&D world – but those gains are beginning to extend across pharma sectors.

In pharma manufacturing in the US today, around 46% of all roles are occupied by women, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2021. And according to a Bloomberg report, women’s roles across manufacturing roles had a massive boost after the start of the pandemic.

Phar­ma rep­u­ta­tion re­tains 'halo' even as pan­dem­ic me­dia cov­er­age re­cedes — sur­vey

The Covid-19 halo effect on the pharma industry is continuing, according to a new global study from Ipsos. The annual survey for the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA) finds considerable goodwill from consumers across measures of trust, cooperation with governments, and advancing research and drug development.

“Despite the pandemic in many countries no longer being the top of mind concern generally – although it does remain the top concern as a health issue – the industry’s reputation has remained positive,” said Ipsos research director Thomas Fife-Schaw.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

FDA commissioner Robert Califf (Jose Luis Magana/AP Images)

FDA pulls On­copep­tides' Pepax­to in­di­ca­tion, open­ing the door for dan­gling ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval en­force­ment

In a move all but ensured after an overwhelmingly negative adcomm vote this September, the FDA is yanking Oncopeptides’ dangling accelerated approval. And there may be more to come.

In recent months, US regulators have honed in on reforming the accelerated approval pathway and preventing drugmakers from continuing to sell their medicines in the event of a confirmatory study flop. The moves come after commissioner Rob Califf has called for companies to do more to produce post-marketing evidence quickly earlier this year.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Mark McKenna, Prometheus Biosciences chairman & CEO

With clear PhII win in IBD, Prometheus thwarts Pfiz­er com­par­isons as it fol­lows Hu­mi­ra 'play­book'

Prometheus Biosciences reported a clear Phase II win in two inflammatory bowel disease conditions in a clinical development race with Pfizer, planting the biotech’s flag in a field of antibodies attempting to go against black box-cornered JAK inhibitors and AbbVie’s Humira.

Shares $RXDX have soared since the summer — a small dip last week notwithstanding when rival Pfizer teamed up with Roivant on a new company for their competing anti-TL1A monoclonal antibody. And they skyrocketed once again Wednesday morning, climbing from $36 apiece to more than $100 on the back of two Phase II studies: one placebo-controlled in ulcerative colitis and the other an open-label trial in patients with Crohn’s disease.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 154,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.